base (bās) adj. bas·er, bas·est
Not adhering to ethical or moral principles; "base and unpatriotic motives"; "a base, degrading way of life"; having or showing an ignoble lack of honor or morality; "that liberal obedience without which your army would be a base rabble"- Edmund Burke; "something essentially vulgar and meanspirited in politics"; illegitimate.
Karl Rove made an appearance in Manhattan last night at a fundraiser for the Conservative Party of New York. He had a couple of interesting thoughts he wanted to share.
"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers," he said.
What an amazingly contorted view of recent history Mr. Rove possesses.
Also, for someone who is a self-described Christian (alas, he's Episcopalian, my own affiliation) and has spent tremendous amounts of time, effort and money energizing Christian conservatives, he's got some very questionable theology.
I've brought up this Scriptural passage before, but allow me to point it out one more time:
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles." (Matthew 5:38-41 )
I can't recall hearing a single conservative Christian inviting us to turn the other cheek, as Christ commands. In fact, Rove seems to be accusing Liberals of reaching out in exactly the way God would have us act. Funny, then, that so many in the GOP think of themselves as God's party, even going so far in some cases as to claim it's a sin to vote Democrat.
"I don't know about you, but moderation and restraint is not what I felt when I watched the twin towers crumble to the ground, a side of the Pentagon destroyed, and almost 3,000 of our fellow citizens perish in flames and rubble," added Rove.
Well, I was actually in Manhattan that day, and I remember exactly how I felt. (Granted, I was thankfully many blocks north of the tragedy; presently I work about a 10-minute walk from the WTC site.) I had a nauseating, dizzy emptiness radiating out from the pit of my stomach. Manhattan was absolutely silent that morning, except for the sound of sirens. No one spoke, except with their eyes. It wasn't a question of feeling restraint; it was being too stunned, too grief-stricken to do anything at all except stare southward at the billowing black cloud that stretched its way toward Brooklyn. There was also a numbing terror, as I wondered, "Is it over? Is there more?"
I also remember that President Bush sat on his ass and read that goat book. Then he hopped on Air Force One and fled.
I don't want to criticize anyone's gut reactions to such a horrific event. Anger and rage are certainly valid responses; there is no justification for the slaughter of thousands of innocent people.
But politics is not about gut reactions. Government shouldn't be run on the basis of gut reactions. For those who think the American government should operate more from a Christian perspective, I might offer this passage:
Let your moderation be known to all men. The Lord is at hand. Be anxious for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, will keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus. Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are honest, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report; if there is any virtue, and if there is any praise, think on these things. Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace will be with you. (Philippians 4:5-9)
There's more in the passage above than what's directly relevant to this post, but it's one of my favorites so I just wanted to share it.
Rove concluded his address by saying, "No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals."
Indulge me for one moment while I throw out one more passage from Scripture: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. (Exodus 20:16)
Let's have a quick historical re-cap: the attacks of September 11, 2001, were carried out by al Qaeda, which was operating out of Afghanistan with the support of its Taliban government.
Three days after the terrorist attacks, the Senate voted 98-0 and the House voted 420-1 for a resolution authorizing Bush to use ''all necessary and appropriate force'' against those responsible for the terrorism.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I can't stand Rove but his comments are no mre inflamatory than Howard Dean's. You may not think Dean's comments are that bad but that is because you are on the same side of the fence as he is on. What I am really tired of is all the whiney ass hipocrits that cry every time the other side sticks their tongue out at them. Neither side has said anything that is so shocking or abhorrent that they should have to apologize. Both sides are guilty of this penty anty bullshit. They politicize and make a big deal about the most unimportant stuff. There was huge debate over the flag burning amendmant with lots of name calling. Who cares? There are much more important issues that need to be legislated. This saddest part of this three ring circus is that the American public follows their lead with blinders on. The real reason the assholes on the hill participate in this circus is that they really don't do a whole lot of everything and are hugely overpaid. You may not agree with that last statement but ask yourself this: Can I name one truly socially advancing piece of legislation in the last ten years? Good Luck, you will probably have to do some research to answer that. If you need to research THE ANSWER IT MUST NOT HAVE BEEN THAT IMPORTANT.
For there record, here is what I had to say about Howard Dean's recent remarks.
I would absolutely agree that Congress is spending all of its time on partisan posturing -- both parties -- and the flag-burning thing is just nonsense. If someone wants to burn an American flag, that's their problem. It doesn't feed one hungry child or provide anyone with meaningful tax relief or make America any safer.
The Congressional Democrats' main problem is gutlessness. I would agree that it was ridiculous that Senator Durbin felt compelled to apologize for his remarks about Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo; what he said was the truth and if it was shocking or abhorrent, then we should have been paying attention, not deflecting what was shocking about it onto him.
Karl Rove's remarks, however, were absolutely nauseating. What gall to defend a President who let the real terrorist get away only to destabilize the middle east, ruin America's image in the world, and cause the deaths of thousands of innocent people by invading a defenseless country that was not involved in the 9/11 attacks. How positively disgusting that out of both the entire Senate and House, there was only onedissenting vote on the issue of using force against the true 9/11 villains, and yet Rove accuses the liberals of wanting to coddle the terrorists. No, buddy, we just wanted to go after the real criminals.
Thank you for your post, I hope you check in again. I don't get many comments that take issue with what I write. Then again, that's probably because I'm right.
I in no way agree with the list of lame excuses that the administration has provided in order to oust Saddam. However, to portray Saddam and Iraq as a poor defenseless country is ridiculous. They had a military granted they sucked serious ass. Saddam choose to continue to defy the world knowing the potential consequences. My opinion on the Iraq conquest is this: We were given a load of shit concerning why we went there. However, a larger good has been served. The Iraqi people will now be free and will be able to govern themselves. I don't believe for a minute that the Bush administration cared about this. By the way the Liberals conviction about eradicating the Terrorists lasted as the long as the polls dictated it. As soon as the winds of popular opinion shifted so did the Liberal stance.
You did not address the meaningfull legislation question.
I for the most part have grown to have serious issues with both parties if you haven't noticed. I think that the overwhelming majority of elected officials are corrup and morally bankrupt assholes that have no intention of helping anyone but themselves. I read The Atlantic Monthly on a regular basis and this month they had a small snippit on how Congress cheats the American people. According to Federal Statute if a Senator or Congressman misses a day of work while Congress is in session they are not supposed to get paid for that day. As an example from the list John Kerry missed 146 days while Congress was is sessionin 2003 and 2004(Campaigning). He should have had to forfeit $90,932.68 out of his $300,000 salary. This is a law that is ignored. The snippit is on page 47 top right corner and is titled Pay as they go. It is in the July/August issue if you want to see it for yourself.
I think much of the appeal of Rove's position among the voters comes from it's simplicity and ease. Forgiveness, moderation, and loving your enemy are harder than violence.
That said, I would like to point out that biblical precedent (including N.T.) does exist for the idea of armed conflict to destroy evil-doers in the world. We must remember that Christ is not called the Lion of Judah for his cuddliness.
Mind you, I need to go wash up or something because I'm handing you a moldy argument that I don't personally agree with. I just want to point out that reasonable people can draw upon biblical justification for the Iraq war.
Matthew: I'll start by saying I'm not a knee-jerk pacifist, and I supported the war in Afghanistan as far as removing the Taliban and bringing order to that troubled nation. I agree that sometimes it's necessary to fight.
One of the most troublesome Gospel passages, for me, is Matthew 10:34, "Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword." I still don't know entirely what that means, but I strongly suspect it's not as literal as it might seem. The reason why I think that is because of later "sword" references in the New Testament:
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. " (Ephesians 6:17)
"For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart." (Hebrews 4:12)
At any rate, there was near-unanimity on the issue of going to Afghanistan; many of the countries which refused to participate in the Iraq boondoggle were among the first to volunteer for the fight for Afghanistan. It is absolutely wrong for Rove to assert that liberals did not want to fight to defend their country when the need arose.
Anonymous: I did not address the legislation issue because frankly it was off-topic, something for another post. Actually, your whole second post is off-topic. You make wonderful points, but it's kind of irrelevant to what I was doing here.
I wanted to point out the outrage that this top advisor to the President who is considered a hero by so many Christians is blatantly criticizing compassion as if it were a weakness; compassion, forgiveness, patience and love for your neighbor is the entire message of Christ. He's also just lying about the liberal response to 9/11. Liberals wanted to pursue those who were responsible; Bush wanted to pursue those with oil.
Also, yes, Iraq had an army, Iraq had weapons. Fine. But compared to US forces, they were sitting ducks. That wasn't a fair fight, and there was never any doubt who the victor would be during the invasion. No one wondered if the US would be able to topple Saddam; instead, every rational person wanted to know what Bush would do once that inevitability occcurred. He never answered.
Right on, Andy! I love how you make cogent arguments and also back your shit up. Keep it up.
Matthew: Your mention of "simplicity and ease" is totally correct. All I do is hear folks talk about what busy and hard lives they lead, and how they just want to unwind and not worry about things. While I take issue with those sentiments, you're right in that Karl Rove played into that well in his speech.
Take care.
Post a Comment